Memory Alpha:Pages for deletion
Category:User pt * Category:User pt - not seeing this as either being used or, at the moment, required, anymore now than it was two or three months ago, when it was originally created. --Alan del Beccio 02:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC) **It was created (along with the corresponding pt userboxes) as part of the MA Babel project at the request of an apparent native Portuguese-speaking contributor, who was notified of it's creation, and who then never made use of it. -- Renegade54 03:51, 23 August 2006 (UTC) **If it hasn't been used for 2-3 months, might as well delete it. - Enzo Aquarius 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC) **Agreed. No need for it if it has not been used after this long. Delete. --OuroborosCobra talk 04:32, 23 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Forum threads The following forum threads seem to be just idle discussion not concerned with either questions about MA itself (Ten Forward), or reference questions (Reference Desk). While some policy about how to deal with forum pages is missing, I'm putting those here for deletion: *Forum:Your mirror universe persona *Forum:Did they forget about the rest? *Forum:Star Trek Season Final's On T.V. *Forum:Skype *Forum:Wikipedia is communism idiots *Forum:Errata I've noticed, and why I think you are all crackheads ...although I really love the title of that last one. ;) -- Cid Highwind 10:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'comment': Deleting forum threads is unnecessary, IMO. It doesn't hurt anything to keep them. Also, after an admin summarily deleted a few threads without any discussion, I posted this: Forum:Deleting Ten Forward Threads. --Bp 19:21, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' I think keeping every one is a bad idea, these particular ones being the examples of ones I wouldn't want to keep. They serve no purpose, and how do we tell people "Don't do something" and then keep it anyway? That'd be like the a new user "don't create non-canon ship pages" and then when they do, leave it cause it's not harming anything. Although, the last one does make me want to use the word 'skedaddle' more often... - AJ Halliwell 19:30, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ::Forum threads are different than non-canon ship pages. Non-canon ship pages are cancer if they get linked into the MA web. Forum threads are not linked to anything, they are comments archived naturally as they age. The forum name space is a self contained place for discussions and there is no reason to delete any, unless they are google link spam or something else malicious. But, if we are going to delete threads, then it should be like this through the pfd process, not just let admins arbitrarily decide what is a worthwhile discussion and what isn't, which is what I was reacting to when Jaz deleted those threads without any discussion. --Bp 20:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Comment': We either want off-topic threads, or we don't - and apparently, according to what is enumerated at the top of the Ten Forward page, we don't. I deleted one thread recently (a bug report), moved several to a more appropriate place (the Reference Desk), and those remain - idle discussions without relevancy to MA, and without any place to be moved to. Why should we not delete them, if we didn't want them in the first place, according to several notes on different pages? -- Cid Highwind 20:13, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 06:46, 27 August 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted' all. --From Andoria with Love 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Dwarf planet ;Dwarf planet: Ignore the current content of that page - what's being voted on is the earlier revision that was a redirect to Planetoid. Deletion was requested by User:BlueMars. -- Cid Highwind 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. Dwarf planet is now a scientific term, that's probably being put to use in the future. It can't hurt to have this connected to some article here - if not to planetoid, then perhaps to simply planet? -- Cid Highwind 18:36, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete', while "dwarf planet" is a scientific term as of 24 August 2006, it has never been used in Star Trek to my knowledge. We are not a dictionary, and we keep to canon. This name apparently has never been used in canon, so why would we keep it? It would certainly not make sense to apply this to planets, since it is being used for bodies such as Pluto, which has been demoted to not being a full planet. --OuroborosCobra talk 19:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC) **We already have articles about "scientific terms" that haven't been directly mentioned by name, but used by concept. From on-screen sources, we don't know what exactly this "Pluto" is, so we are referring to our real-world knowledge and call Pluto a "dwarf planet", because that is what it is classified as at the moment. The alternative would be to call Pluto nothing but "some unknown object in the solar system" - surely not something one would expect. -- Cid Highwind 20:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC) ***We can call Pluto a dwarf planet, possibly (that is an entire other discussion, one that is being held elsewhere), but do we then need an article on dwarf planets? An entire article with no canon information? I personally say no, and I would say no to many of the other ones. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:37, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Keep'. This is a legitimate term. It doesn't matter if it wasn't around when ST was written. It's a matter of science. If it is not included in this encyclopedia, then that would essentially place ST within the realm of fantasy, not science fiction. Therefore a "dwarf planet" article MUST exist on Memory Alpha. -- Krevaner 22:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC) **Um, no, you are forgetting the FICTION part of science fiction. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:14, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' - What gives some scientists the right to decide what is and what isnt? MatthewFenton 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *Further comment. People seem to be saying we should keep this because it would be part of science in Star Trek, whether it is mentioned or not. Here is an example problem with this. We do not have an article about "Cepheid Variables". They are used to measure the distance to other galaxies, including the Andromeda Galaxy, which is mentioned in Star Trek, but because Cepheid Variables are not, they don't get an article. Neither is there an article for "Spiral galaxy", despite the fact that the Milky Way, where Star Trek takes place, is a spiral galaxy. Should there be a mention of Pluto being a dwarf planet on the Pluto article, in the background section? YES. Should there be an article for something never mentioned in Star Trek? NO! --OuroborosCobra talk 23:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Comment', again: What part of "redirect to Planetoid" (alternatively to Planet) is so hard to understand? This is not about creating a whole article with stuff in it, it is about keeping a redirect... -- Cid Highwind 02:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC) **OK, somehow I forgot that part. Sorry, been in debates about Pluto and this IAU stuff in 50 different places today on the internet, I was bound to forget something somewhere. Redirect to planet would be a mistake, since they are not planets, but redirect to planetoid would be fine. Just no article for itself, that would be bad ;) --OuroborosCobra talk 02:15, 25 August 2006 (UTC) *'Keep' as redirect to planetoid. (Haha, reading through all that I forgot the same thing.) Although, it still wasn't mentioned in canon, and I may change my vote depending on the outcome of our Pluto decisian. - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC) USS ARGO ;USS ARGO : Naming conventions aside (we don't need the title to scream at us), this article is either non-canon or fan-made. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 20:32, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. Scary now. --OuroborosCobra talk 20:39, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' - Erm...wow. Voyager class? Cloak? Transwarp? This is truely a steak through a canon-man's heart :P - Enzo Aquarius 02:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC) *The article has been moved to USS Argo. That should be delete'd, along with the remaining redirect, USS ARGO. --OuroborosCobra talk 02:45, 25 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete. Um, wow indeed. - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 04:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Stack Pierce ;Stack Pierce : Incorrectly credited as playing Adm. Haden, when he in fact has nothing to do with Star Trek. He is listed on StarTrek.com, but the ever resourceful Jörg confirmed that the character was played by John Hancock in both of his appearances. Delete. --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. To bad we cannot edit StarTrek.com --OuroborosCobra talk 20:43, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. And here are two links each to screenshots of Haden's appearances, as can be seen, both played by John Hancock: The Defector 1, The Defector 2 and The Wounded 1, The Wounded 2, all 4 courtesy of www.trekcore.com. --Jörg 23:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete.' - AJ Halliwell 00:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC) :*'Deleted'. --From Andoria with Love 20:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Scavenger This appears to be based solely on a non-canon source. -- Renegade54 14:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete' - article is based off of the Star Trek: Voyager - Elite Force game, and thus is not canon. - Enzo Aquarius 15:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC) *'Delete'. --From Andoria with Love 20:14, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Los Angeles Dodgers ;Los Angeles Dodgers : I don't believe the Dodgers were ever referenced in Star Trek. If I'm wrong, then I recant the deletion request, but the article needs to be cited. For now, however, I vote delete. --From Andoria with Love 20:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC) Odo Ital ;Odo Ital This was made as a redirect to Odo, but the proper term is Odo'Ital. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC) :Hmm, I just thought about it, and it might be good to keep this. Nevermind. --OuroborosCobra talk 03:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)